Supreme Court Ruling Should Prod Expansion Of Term-limitation Drive

March 11, 1992

California voted itself a legislative broom with which to sweep dust-covered politicians out of office two years ago. On Monday, the United States Supreme Court put its seal of approval on this dramatic new housecleaning technique.

The justices refused to hear a legal challenge to the term-limitation initiative, already approved by California`s highest court. The action opens the door for other states to enact their own measures aimed at ousting career officeholders.

An even more sweeping measure than California`s is already on the books in Colorado. Voters in Michigan, South Dakota and Wyoming will have their say in November. Campaigns to place a term-limitation initiative on the ballot are under way in Florida, Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Utah and Washington.

California`s Proposition 140, which limits Assembly members to six years in office and state senators, the governor and other elected statewide officials to eight years, places no restrictions on members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. It is designed to oust all current state lawmakers over the next six years.

The Supreme Court did not rule on whether states can limit the terms of federal officeholders, as the overly broad ``Eight is Enough`` proposal would do in Florida.

Any state which places term limitations on its congressmen in the absence of similar action by the other 49 will put itself at a disadvantage in terms of the seniority system that governs so much of the national agenda. The proper venue for federal-level term limits is Congress itself, not the various states.

In the current atmosphere of widespread dissatisfaction with government, there is growing momentum for action from top to bottom of the political process. Term limits are a means of encouraging turnover, diluting the excessive power of incumbents, increasing responsiveness to constituents` concerns, preventing dynasty-building, reducing the exorbitant cost of campaigning and resurrecting the quaint concept that elective office should be a temporary public-service option, not a permanent residence on the public payroll.

There is much merit to the idea of amending the Florida Constitution to limit the 120 members of the House, 40 members of the Senate and six members of the Cabinet to eight consecutive years in the same office, as the governor is already limited.

The current Legislature is trying to counter the referendum drive with a proposed amendment of its own that would impose an 11-consecutive-year limit on legislators and Cabinet members. However, the clock wouldn`t even be started until after November, meaning no prior service would count against the limit.

This transparent ploy is appropriately tied up in committee. Foot-dragging Florida legislators should study the California experience and take steps to place reasonable limits on their terms before fed-up voters do it for them.